Lloyd and John, I've read the materials (the one-pager), and will not be able to attend our meeting tomorrow, so here are items that need resolution before I can approve this case. Obviously, these items would have been resolved if the case had an owner :-)
tdc01 - no interfaces declared, no 20Q document. There is just the one-pager. Please submit materials for the case that provide interfaces. Specifically, does this rely on the drivers for the supported devices? Does it rely on any other existing library or OSS project? I'm assuming (but not entirely sure) that the packaging and delivery info is implicitly stated when I see that this is being released as part of Nevada. tdc02 - one-pager specifies a standard review, not a fast-track. tdc03 - Is it delivered for both SPARC and x86? tdc04 - Does it have a man page tdc05 - Are there licensing issues? This may be a nit, but I had to read the entire one-pager to infer that (1) this is an open source project, and (2) it's a part of Nevada. I wish there was some way that we stated the basics like this up front. -tdc On Feb 25, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Lloyd L Chambers wrote: > John, > > Usually one obtains a sponsor for a FastTrack in advance, by mutual > agreement. > > I'll raise this case at LSARC business tomorrow. If it has no > objections, we'll approve it (assuming ARC members have read it). > > I'm not a Solaris guy, maybe another LSARC member can chime in here > on the namespace/package name issue. > > Lloyd > > On Feb 22, 2008, at 11:55 AM, John Downing wrote: > >> Lloyd: >> >> The case owner/sponsor has not been assigned to me. Can I do that >> or does someone else >> need to do it? Also I'm not sure if there was something I needed >> to do make this a FastTrack >> review. I've read documentation saying that I need and ARC member >> to be the sponsor but >> I do not have that. >> >> And do I need to reserve namespace for the package? I currently >> have it named SUNWlibao. >> >> I agree about the HTML files but I wanted to make sure it wasn't a >> problem. They are currently >> being included in the package in /usr/gnu/share/doc/libao-0.8.8. >> >> Thanks >> >> John >> >>> John, >>> >>> Your case is LSARC/2008/076 eg http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2008/076/ >>> >>> Was a case owner/sponsor ever assigned to you? There is none >>> listed in the IAM file. >>> >>> I don't know why it didn't show up for last week's meeting; we >>> discussed all open FastTracks at that time and our meeting notes >>> do not mention the case. >>> >>> There has been no discussion of this case in email. I will raise >>> the case during ARC business this coming Tuesday 2/28. As there >>> has been no discussion, I expect we will approve it. >>> >>> Regarding HTML files, IMO they should be included. >>> >>> Lloyd >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:50 AM, John Downing wrote: >>> >>>> John: >>>> >>>> I am wondering if there is anything I need to do make sure this >>>> process is continuing. I have >>>> not heard from the LSARC chair and I am don't if I have >>>> completed all of my obligations for >>>> the case. >>>> >>>> Also my manager has mentioned that after the case's expiration >>>> date that the case is approved >>>> by default. Do you know anything about that? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> John Downing >>>> >>>>> This level of detail and discussion should be had with an ARC >>>>> sponsor >>>>> (see list of licensees, interns and members on the LSARC page), >>>>> and not with myself or Aarti, who, while experienced, >>>>> knowledgeable >>>>> and all 'round great people :-), are really the support staff >>>>> for the >>>>> ARCs themselves. >>>>> >>>>> I've Cc:'d the LSARC chair, who can step in and help... >>>>> >>>>> -John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John R Downing - Sun Microsystems Inc wrote: >>>>>> I believe that what I'm doing is very simple, given that 1) is >>>>>> true. I have an >>>>>> sfwnv child and I have taken the libao zip file and put it >>>>>> under usr/src/lib >>>>>> similar to a other open source libraries in sfw. I unzips, >>>>>> configures, compiles >>>>>> like all other gnu libraries, does it again for 64-bit, copies >>>>>> into the proto area >>>>>> and makes a package, SUNWlibao, which installs libraries, >>>>>> header files and >>>>>> documentation under /usr/gnu. I have included prototype files >>>>>> for your >>>>>> inspection. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another question I have are about the package itself - should >>>>>> it include the >>>>>> html style documentation in addition to the man pages. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> John Downing >>>>>>> There are two "things" that can be reviewed in an open source >>>>>>> project: >>>>>>> 1) the content of the project itself, and >>>>>>> 2) the way you are going to integrate the project into Solaris. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We /assume/ that the FOSS community does #1 by itself just >>>>>>> fine :-), >>>>>>> so the ARC focus is on #2 - the actions /you/ are going to >>>>>>> take to >>>>>>> transplant this thing into Solaris, and how well it will fit >>>>>>> once >>>>>>> there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Inception and commitmwnt reviews may be appropriate depending on >>>>>>> the complexity and impact of the integration. If you are simply >>>>>>> adding another text editor, things might be very trivial; >>>>>>> however, >>>>>>> if you are adding an admin utility that touches on security >>>>>>> (root >>>>>>> privs...), configuration (zones, fma, smf) or installation >>>>>>> (pkgs, >>>>>>> zones, upgrade...), it will be more difficult. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For some stuff, it is OK to follow the "linux lead"; for others, >>>>>>> we need to make sure the solaris way of doing things isn't >>>>>>> obscured. >>>>>>> That's one of the things an arc inception review tries to >>>>>>> figure out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Aarti Pai wrote: >>>>>>>> John Downing wrote: >>>>>>>>> Aarti: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have read through the materials concerning my LSARC case >>>>>>>>> and I have two questions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. How do I determine if I need a review or not? The >>>>>>>>> email you sent me made it sound >>>>>>>>> optional but I could find no guidelines on how to determine >>>>>>>>> if one is needed. >>>>>>>> There are 3 types of reviews: Self Review, Fast-track, and >>>>>>>> Standard review. Guidelines for each of these are >>>>>>>> available on the sac website: http://sac.sfbay/arc/ >>>>>>>> Self Review: http://sac.sfbay/arc/ARC-SelfReview.html >>>>>>>> Fast-track: http://sac.sfbay/arc/ARC-FastTrack.html >>>>>>>> Standard Review: http://sac.sfbay/arc/ARC-Review.html >>>>>>>> Feel free to let me know if you still have questions after >>>>>>>> reviewing the guidelines. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Since this is a library which comes from the Open >>>>>>>>> Source community, I would think that >>>>>>>>> an inception review is not needed. Is this true? >>>>>>>> We are now holding open meetings and making the ARC >>>>>>>> process / cases available to OpenSolaris / >>>>>>>> open source community. I've Cc'd John to help with this >>>>>>>> specific question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Aarti >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> --- >>> Lloyd L Chambers >>> lloyd.chambers at sun.com >>> Sun Microsystems, Inc >>> >>> >>> >> > > --- > Lloyd L Chambers > lloyd.chambers at sun.com > Sun Microsystems, Inc > > >
